In a landmark decision in September 2013, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) held that the duty of defense counsel to accurately advise noncitizen clients of immigration consequences, as announced in Padilla v. Kentucky, is RETROACTIVE under Massachusetts common law for convictions obtained before April 1, 1997. The SJC also found a separate duty to properly advice noncitizen defendants under article 12 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.
In Chaidez v. United States, the United States Supreme Court, held pre-1997 pleas were not retroactive and dashed the hope of thousands of immigrants in deportation or removal proceedings. Specifically, the Chaidez Court ruled that the decision in Padilla v. Kentucky holding that the Sixth Amendment requires defense attorneys to inform criminal defendants of the deportation risks of guilty pleas, does not apply retroactively to cases already final on direct review.
In September 2013, according to the Boston Globe, “In a decision that may help some Massachusetts residents avoid deportation, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that immigrants convicted of crimes since 1997 may seek to reverse those convictions if they can show that their lawyers gave them bad advice about the impact a conviction would have on their immigration status. In an unanimous ruling written by Justice Robert Cordy, the state’s highest court invoked the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights to conclude that defense lawyers have a constitutional duty to provide clients with accurate advice on how a drug conviction affects their immigration status.”
“The US Supreme Court has said that constitutional errors after a certain point aren’t important enough to correct,” said Justice Robert Cordy, above, who wrote the unanimous decision. “What the SJC has said is that’s not the case in Massachusetts.”
The SJC has now given some immigrants who are in deportation proceedings a fighting chance to undo criminal convictions and remain in the United States.
Leave a comment